Tag Archives: The Religion of Peace

The day after the San Bernardino jihadist attack that left fourteen dead and even more wounded, my old boss, Rudy Giuliani, came out and said what most sane people are thinking. After hours of pained, halting, incoherent babbling by public officials from President Obama on down about whether the mass-killing by two heavily armed, obviously well-trained Muslims constituted a terrorist attack, Rudy exploded:

You can come to one clear conclusion with the information they have right now. This is an act of terror. The question was motivation. . . . The question here is not, is it an act of terror. We’re beyond that. When you got two assault weapons, two handguns, you’re in body armor, you got a home that’s booby-trapped. You’ve [ACM: meaning “they’ve”] been practicing to do this. . . . If you can’t come to a conclusion at this point that this was an act of terror, you should find something else to do for a living besides law enforcement. I mean, you’re a moron.

Hard to argue with that.

But look, if you actually speak with the police and federal agents conducting the investigation into the attack, you figure out pretty quickly that they are not morons. They are actually very good at what they do. So why is it that, upon seeing two-plus-two, they can’t call it four when Islam is involved?

I’ve been trying to explain this for many years, beginning in Willful Blindness, a memoir about prosecuting terrorists in the Clinton era, and in a stack of columns here at National Review, including one from a few years back that described how our government, under administrations of both parties and the bipartisan Beltway ruling class, has constructed “an Islam of their very own.”

Rudy is right that what they’ve done is moronic, but there is a logic to it. It goes like this.

The government denies that terrorism is caused by Islamic doctrine. This is a triumph of willful blindness and political correctness best illustrated by former British home secretary Jacqui Smith, who might as well have been speaking for our government when she branded terrorism as “anti-Islamic activity.” That is: the savagery is not merely unrelated to Islam but becomes, by dint of its being violence, contrary to Islam. This must be so because the British government, like our government, insists Islam is a “religion of peace.”

Now, this is absurd, of course. There are various ways of interpreting Islam, and millions of Muslims manage to “contextualize” Islamic scripture’s numerous commands to conduct holy war, reasoning that these divine injunctions applied only to their historical time and place and are no longer relevant. Yet, even if you buy this line of thinking, that does not make Islam a peaceful belief system. Verses like “Fight those who believe not in Allah,” and “fight and slay the pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem of war,” are not peaceful injunctions, no matter how one “contextualizes” them.

More to the point, the stubborn reality is: There will always be a large percentage of Muslims who believe these scriptures (and the many others like them) mean exactly what they say.

Our government is in denial of this. Unwilling to deal with Islam as it is, the government must make up an Islam of its very own. Regardless of the abundance of evidence to the contrary, the government holds that Islam is a religion of peace, case closed. (Such a laughable case has to be closed because it cannot withstand even slight examination).

Therefore, to the government, terrorism committed by people who happen to be Muslim is not in any way a reflection of any legitimate interpretation of Islam — even if Islamic supremacist ideology, which endorses jihadist violence, is so mainstream that tens of millions of Muslims adhere to it. Remember, here in America as in Western Europe, the violence is deemed anti-Islamic. That is what has been dictated to our law-enforcement agents by their superiors. If those were your instructions, you’d be babbling like a moron, too.

So, what are the policy implications of the government’s constructing its own fantasy Islam, the one and only principle of which is pacifism? Here are a few of the worst.

It means that Islamic doctrine can never be cited as the cause of terrorism. This leads, for example, to the preposterous government handwringingover “radicalization”: You are apparently supposed to believe young people, all of whom just happen to be Muslim, spontaneously become violent radicals — as if there were no doctrine or body of thought that was inducing the radicalization. You are only to say they have been “radicalized” — never mention by what.

Fantasy Islam also leads inexorably to the irrational decree that terrorist organizations like ISIS and al Qaeda are not Islamic. You are to conclude that they are either wanton killers or that they have “hijacked” and “perverted” Islam into something that it is not — something that cannot be dignified with the name “Islam” because Islam, after all, is a religion of peace.

The most ludicrous fallout of this line of thinking is the one Rudy rightly labels moronic: The apparent inability of government officials to call a mass-murder attack by Muslims a terrorist attack. But again, if you follow the government’s official party line, you understand the reluctance of these officials: The only terrorists the government acknowledges as terrorists are formally designated terrorist groups — ISIS, al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah. As we’ve seen, the government has pronounced these groups to be anti-Islamic.

Thus, if the police come upon a mass-murder attack that is clearly instigated by Islamic doctrine, they are not permitted to conclude that it is terrorism because they’ve been directed to maintain that Islam is against terrorism. Consequently, the agents believe they cannot call terrorism terrorism unless and until they uncover evidence proving that the Muslim mass-murderers have some tie to a designated “non-Islamic” terrorist group, such as ISIS or al-Qaeda.

It is rare for such evidence to be uncovered early in an investigation. And the fact of the matter is, such evidence will often never be uncovered because it doesn’t exist. It will frequently turn out that the Muslims who’ve committed the atrocity have been “radicalized” by Islamic doctrine, straightforwardly interpreted as Islamic supremacism by their fellow Islamists at the local mosque and Islamic center. They don’t need mediation, help, or instruction from ISIS or al Qaeda. They already share the same ideology as these groups, the goal of imposing Allah’s law (sharia). All they really need in order to execute terrorist attacks is paramilitary training. That is readily available in many Muslim communities; you don’t need to go to an al-Qaeda or ISIS training camp to get it.

Notice that there is a treacherous flipside to our government’s insistence on making up its own content-free, obsessively peaceful Islam. Not only can terrorism never be associated with it. Anyone who is publicly associated with Islam by the government must be deemed peaceful. This is how we fall into the trap of allowing the Muslim Brotherhood, the world’s most influential Islamic supremacist organization, to infiltrate the policy-making organs of counterterrorism.

The government, particularly under the control of President Obama, acknowledges the Brotherhood as an Islamic organization — notwithstanding the ham-handed attempt by the intelligence community a few years back to rebrand the Brotherhood as “largely secular.” Under the government’s imaginary Islam, acknowledging a group as Islamic perforce gives them a clean bill of health: They are deemed “peaceful,” “moderate,” and steadfastly opposed to terrorism.

And never you mind that Hamas is the Brotherhood’s Palestinian branch, that the Brotherhood has a long history of terrorist violence, and that major Brotherhood figures have gone on to play leading roles in terrorist organizations such as al-Qaeda. The beautiful thing about making up an Islam of their very own is that government officials never let the facts get in the way of a good story.

And that’s why they won’t say the terrorist attack in San Bernardino is the terrorist attack in San Bernardino.

The obsession to convince us that most Muslims are moderate and that Islam is a religion of peace brings to mind Shakespeare’s “The lady doth protest too much, methinks” Is there any other religion that draws such an incessant chorus of voices proclaiming the religion to be peaceful?

No.

It is only the case with Islam that we hear the ceaseless lie because it is the only religion that warrants explanation on a daily basis. If the explanation reflected the truth, we might actually win this war that has been waged against us – a war that has been raging to a greater or lesser degree for 1400 years.

The fact is, Islam is a political doctrine of war. In the West, it is also a religion of caveats.

The caveats

According to the uninformed or intentionally misleading, Muslims generally fall into one of two categories. There is the ever-elusive “moderate” Muslim, though it’s not clear what that means.

According to the uninformed or intentionally misleading, moderate Muslims follow a peaceful religion and are presumed to be like any other group of reasonable, law-abiding, freedom-loving folk.

But there is ample evidence to show that moderate Muslims might also represent jihad lite. “Moderate” may describe the kind of Muslims the Obama administration is importing from places like Syria who have had “minor” associations with terrorists. Or perhaps they are American Muslims who believe that drawing a parody of Mohammed should be a criminal offense, with some saying the person should receive the death penalty.

In any case, if there’s a moderate version of a religion, there must be a pious orthodox version. Which brings us to the other category for Muslims: extremists. They are the ones who commit heinous acts of violence by, presumably, misrepresenting Islam. Although that’s a bit confusing because people can’t represent an extreme form of something while simultaneously not representing that something in any way, shape, or form.

So increasingly, the uninformed or intentionally misleading tell us that Islam has nothing to do with these “extremists.” Apparently it’s a gigantic coincidence that these savages keep shouting “Allahu Akbar” while quoting the Quran chapter and verse as they kidnap, rape, behead, burn, execute, and destroy every living thing in their path.

Are we to believe these barbarians have come across an imposter version of the Quran that is different from the real Quran – the one that preaches nothing but love for humankind?

By removing the words Islam/Islamic from descriptions of Islamic terror, all that remains is a vague, generic, and incomplete description of the truth: “Extremist.”

The key word that truly informs is left out: Islam/Islamic.

This verbal manipulation occurs repeatedly. It is embraced and peddled by regular folks, the media, far too many in the GOP, just about everyone on the left, and of course the Obama administration. A recent example among an ever-growing list was Obama’s summit to “fight violent extremism around the world” – as if we are witnessing a strange phenomenon of random worldwide violence perpetrated by random demographic groups targeting random people.

But back to the caveats.

If moderates represent the true nature of Islam and extremists have nothing to do with Islam, that leaves only moderates. In which case, why would those who follow Islamic teachings need an extra descriptor (“moderate”) at all? They wouldn’t. They would just be Muslims – the people who follow a religion called Islam.

So, good. We’ve found some common ground. We can toss out these needless caveats because Islam is Islam is Islam. And Islam by any standard is extreme at its core.

Now, how to awaken the brainwashed masses to this growing problem (understatement) that threatens all of civilization?

The uninformed or intentionally misleading

The uninformed or intentionally misleading willingly spew opinions as facts. The most common refrain we hear is that “Islam is a religion of peace.”

Working in tandem with the daily dishing of lies is the distraction method. This is when “not all Muslims are terrorists” is pulled out of the proverbial closet.

Complicating this disgraceful situation is the fact that the uninformed or intentionally misleading are rarely challenged when they spread this garbage around.

So when someone says that Islam is peaceful and that terrorists do not represent Islam, they need to be called out every single time and asked:

Upon what do you base your assertion?

Have you read the Quran? If so, do you understand the meaning of Chapter 2, Verse 106: Abrogation, or what the word taqiyya means?

Why do you assume all religions are created equal? Do you think all ideas the same; that none are better than others?

Are you afraid to speak the truth because you fear retaliation against you and/or your family and/or your employer?

The truth

First of all, Islam is not so much a religion as it is a political ideology. The ultimate goal is world domination. If that sounds crazy or extreme, I didn’t make it up. It’s written in the Quran and it is central to Islam’s history of conquest over the past 1400 years. (See here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here among a long list of examples.)

Second, while it is often said that not all Muslims are terrorists, the discourse tends to stop there or gets re-routed away from the central point. But it shouldn’t. Because here’s the deal: Some Muslims are terrorists. And given the size of the population of Muslims on the planet, “some” is quite a lot.

But what of the rest of the population of Muslims?

While most do not commit outright acts of terror, many of them support terror. And they do so in a variety of ways, including financial support, political activism, and brainwashing their children. (See here, here, here, here, here, and here among numerous examples.)

Then there are those who are not terrorists and who don’t overtly support terror, but who have attitudes that support it or feel ambiguous toward it, including those who support Sharia law – an oppressive and draconian legal system based on Islamic supremacy.

When you do the math, as Ben Shapirodid, you wind up with quite a few Muslims – millions and millions of them – with a vision for civilization that is at odds with Western values. Shapiro’s analysis of a Pew Research poll revealed that more than half of the total Muslim population on earth hold radical views. Additional polls and analyses point to similar conclusions.

We can speak the truth. Or we can allow ourselves to be overwhelmed by the Islamic invasion that is well underway. So far the West is doing the latter. Which makes it all the more urgent that every single one of us step forward to the front lines of this battle. Speak the truth at every opportunity and educate others. Because the propaganda machine runs 24/7.

And it is powerful and effective.

Earlier this month a Des Moines Registerpoll of likely caucus participants revealed that 53% of Republicans and 81% of Democrats had a positive view of Islam as a peaceful religion. If I had to venture a guess, I’d say most, if not all, of those who make up these numbers are uninformed.

Millions of people around the world were horrified by the recent display of abject barbarism when ISIS doused Jordanian pilot Maaz al-Kassasbeh with accelerant, put him in a cage, and burned him alive.

And horrified we should be.

Some say, as I have read in comments on blogs, that perhaps this act of terror will be the catalyst that will wake people up to the ruthless and relentless savagery sweeping across the Middle East under the banner of the Islamic State. And the awakened masses will finally understand what we are up against and who the enemy is.

Or news of daily horrors in Muslim majority countries where women are whipped, stoned, beheaded, and girls are burned alive, to name but a few barbaric practices dictated by Sharia/Islamic law.

Remember when terror tunnels reaching into Israel were discovered (tunnels that are now being rebuilt with our tax dollars)? Or when jihadists crept into the home of an Israeli family and slit the throats of nearly every single family member who lay asleep?

People and children maimed and murdered. One at a time. A family at a time. A village at a time.

Remember Benghazi? So much horror has unfolded since that horror that it runs the risk of becoming a distant memory.

And what of the Islamic terror attack that killed nearly 3,000 people on 9/11, leaving the world in shock, disbelief, sorrow, and rage? (Though many also celebrated the darkness that befell America on that fateful day.)

Not only are there countless more examples from the past few years (just last month alone, nearly 4,000 people were murdered and another 2, 261 were critically injured in 266 jihad attacks spanning 28 countries), but you can go back in time – 1400 years more or less – and find nothing but violence perpetuated upon the earth in the name of Islam.

So to return to my original point: If this centuries-long history doesn’t impress. And if unthinkably savage events in our lifetime haven’t already awakened the sleeping masses, I’m not convinced anything will.

Except, perhaps, this:

Speaking the truth about the underlying ideology that drives this bloodbath. Educating others about the words written in the Koran that demand that non-Muslims convert, pay the jizya tax, or die. Helping people realize that these acts of jihad are not isolated events. Spreading the word that Islam is not a religion of peace, but rather a political ideology of subjugation and war. And rejecting at every turn this nation’s plunge into darkness as the president stands with evil – aligning himself with and negotiating with those who wish to destroy us.

May every single human being who has fallen beneath the sword of Islam rest in peace and may their deaths not be in vain.

AP reported Sunday that “Pope Francis delivered a powerful boost of support to the Palestinians during a Holy Land pilgrimage Sunday, repeatedly backing their statehood aspirations, praying solemnly at Israel’s controversial separation barrier and calling the stalemate in peace efforts ‘unacceptable.’”

Not only that, but “Palestinian officials hailed Francis’ decision to refer to the ‘state of Palestine.’ In its official program, the Vatican referred to President Mahmoud Abbas as the president of the ‘state of Palestine,’ and his Bethlehem office as the ‘presidential palace.’ He pointedly called Abbas a ‘man of peace.’”

The “man of peace” heads up Fatah, which is hardly more “moderate.” Palestinian Media Watch reported on May 14 that “on one of its official Facebook pages the Fatah movement, which is headed by PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas, yesterday posted a warning to Israelis. A sign showed an assault rifle and a map of ‘Palestine’ that included both PA areas and all of Israel. In Arabic, Hebrew, and English it said: ‘Warning. This is a land of a Palestinian state and the occupation to leave immediately’ (English original).”

Likewise, in mid-March, Palestinian official Abbas Zaki, a close friend of the “man of peace,” declared: “These Israelis have no belief, no principles. They are an advanced instrument of evil. They say, the Holocaust, and so on – fine, why are they doing this to us? Therefore, I believe that Allah, will gather them so we can kill them. I am informing the murderer of his death.” Fatah has also vowed to “adhere to the option of armed resistance until the liberation of all of Palestine,” and threatened to “turn the beloved [Gaza] Strip into a graveyard for your soldiers, and we will turn Tel Aviv into a ball of fire.”

TheHenry Jackson Society had just launched a guide to rejecting jihadi theologies in Islam, A Guide to Refuting Jihadism by Rashad Ali and Hannah Stuart. There are also forewords by two Sheikhs, including one from Al-Azhar University, and endorsements from other Muslim leaders.

Although the appearance of this guide as a welcome acknowledgement that jihadi violence is theologically motivated, its use of Islamic sources is flawed and unconvincing, and there are risks for secular governments in embracing its arguments.

It is good that the theological motivations for jihadi movements are being acknowledged and engaged with by peaceable Muslims.

This is not a new strategy. It is necessary and the strategy has long been used by authorities as a counter to jihadi movements. For example the British empire extracted fatwas from Mecca and Istanbul in the 19th century to declare that British India was not ‘Dar al-Harb’ [House of War], but Dar al-Islam [House of Islam]’, which meant that it was forbidden for Muslims to engage in insurgencies against the British. Muslim leaders have always asked their scholars to produce such rulings to counter violent rebellions. This is also a traditional Islamic technique for controlling the undeniable tendency that Islamic theology has to generate violent rebel movements.

This project is also helpful because it acknowledges what is often denied – that the credibility of radical jihadism relies upon religious, theological claims. It claims Islamic legitimacy and uses this to gain converts. It is true that to counter this religious legitimacy it is necessary to use theological arguments.

However there are some dangers here for Western governments. One is that there will be a cost to adopting theological positions on Islam. Is a secular state really in a position to make an announcement that one particular form of Islam is ‘correct’ over others? This is like saying that catholicism is correct, but the baptist faith is not. And if the state does canonize a “theologically correct” view on Islam, would it really be persuasive to the minds of young radically inclined Muslims that a secular government is teaching Islam to them, or would it just incite suspicion, and detract from the credibility of voices of moderation within the Muslim community? Also where does combating radicalism start and promoting Islam start? (The al-Azar Sheikh in his introduction [in Arabic] to the report sees the report as an exercise in spreading Islam, not just in combating radicalism.)

The great weakness in the arguments offered is that they appear to be opportunistic and often ignore conflicting evidence. For example on the subject of suicide bombing, a wide range of modern Muslim scholars have endorsed martyrdom operations against Israel. It is not just al-Qaradawi or Al-Qaida ideologues who say this: senior respected contemporary jurists such as the Syrian jurist Al-Bouti have endorsed these attacks. To counter this tactic a more whole-hearted acknowledgement of the weightof Islamic voices which have endorsed it.

There is also a tendency to cherry pick texts. For example Al-Ghazali is cited to support an argument against killing women and children, but his justification of collateral damage against civilians is ignored:

‘[O]ne must go on jihad at least once a year… one may use a catapult against them when they are in a fortress, even if among them are women and children. One may set fire to them and/or drown them.’

Another example is the discussion of ‘perfidy’ or ‘subterfuge’ in warfare. It is claimed on the basis of a hadith from [hadith collection] Sahih Muslim that Islam forbids the use of deception in warfare, a key point in the theology of the suicide attacks often referred to as ‘martyrdom operations’. However the hadith is cited from a secondary source, and the translation is not accurate. The actual Arabic in Sahih Muslim (translated more accurately here) forbids stealing booty and says that a Muslim is not supposed to break his ‘pledge’, so this is not about deception in warfare in general. The authors also have ignored a very well-known hadith of Muhammad in which he said, ‘War is deceit’. This approach sets up a straw man – a weakly argued jihadi position – only to knock it down. In Islam, support for deception in warfare is more resistant to re-analysis than this.

In the discussion on citizenship – which is a very important issue in Islamic law: can Muslims be loyal citizens? – the authors overlook important rulings collected by the International Fiqh Academy on this issue, which go against their position.

Furthermore, in discussions on the treatment of non-combatants, the authors ignore Muhammad’s command for several hundred non-combatant Jewish men from the Qurayza tribe to be beheaded after they surrendered to him unconditionally. For radically inclined Muslims, Muhammad’s example would trump the musings of medieval theologians.

One of the problems with citing arguments from later jurists and commentators, which is the preferred approach of the Guide’s authors, is that most jihadis’ theology is Salafist, and as such it looks to the early sources on Islam – the Qur’an, the example of Muhammad and the testimony of the companions of Muhammad – to construct their war theologies. Such people will not be persuaded by arguments based on later interpreters, which appears to be the main polemical tactic of this Guide.

Of course, as soon as one raises such objections, one runs the risk of being accused of supporting the jihadis. Nevertheless, the fact is that the radical jihadis have more support than this document would acknowledge, especially in the canonical sources, and the arguments used against them would convince few. Would these arguments be convincing to a well-trained Muslim scholar? I think not.

The strongest Islamic argument of all against jihadi theology is the ‘necessity’ argument: that it will harm Islam by causing its reputation to be destroyed among Muslims, and incite infidels to attack Muslims. We are seeking such arguments being presented these days across the Middle East. General Sisi is being applauded in Egypt for ‘saving’ the reputation of Islam from the Muslim Brotherhood. This argument is not based upon an appeal to theological legitimacy of specific positions, but pragmatic necessity, and what is in the best interests of the Muslim community. Of course this argument would not have any traction at all if the militaries of Islamic states had the power to challenge those of non-Muslim countries. Then it would probably be in the best interests of the Muslim world to pursue war. The argument only works if it is not in Muslims’ interests to be at war.

What about the Al-Azhar Sheikh’s support? This is political. In the current political climate Al-Azhar must support the anti-jihadi cause. The Brotherhood are being killed and wiped out due to their violent theologies. The wind is blowing against the jihadi position. It is significant that the Sheikh does not endorse specific arguments of the book – I suspect he knows better – but only the general intention of the project.

Works like this guide can back-fire. On the one hand they acknowledge that the problem of jihadi violence is theological. On the other hand, through the use of weak arguments relying on cherry-picked sources, they run the risk of validating the radicals’ position even more. Perhaps their real function is to ‘save Islam’ in the eyes of moderately inclined Muslims and theologically illiterate secular people, who have an ideological preference to embrace the narrative that the jihadis have ‘hijacked’ Islam.

But will this help to defuse Islamic jihadism? I doubt it.

Revd Dr Mark Durie is an Anglican priest, Fellow of the Australian Academy for the Humanities, and a Shillman-Ginsburg Fellow at the Middle East Forum in the US. He is the author of The Third Choice: Islam Dhimmitude and Freedom published by Deror Books.

In my work revealing the destructive menace of Islam, I receive messages from Muslims everywhere accusing me of, and calling me, everything imaginable and unimaginable .

I have been accused of being a hate monger bent on deforming the image of Islam. I am called a Zionist, a liar, and every insulting name a woman can be called. Although I was raised in Egypt and educated in a Muslim school system and indoctrinated on the “glories” of Islam since birth, I am also accused of being ignorant about Islam itself. In their critiques against me, many of them are practicing what is called “Taqqiya”.

Taqqiya or the holy lie, is permissible in Islam in order to deceive non Muslims about the true Islamic agenda; complete domination, by force if necessary.

Many Muslims are actually ignorant of the biggest part of their own Islamic doctrine: Jihad, derived from the Arabic root-word mujahada, meaningwarfare to establish the religion. While jihad is physical, there are other forms of jihad that are practised as well: funding terrorism, making propaganda, converting non-Muslims to Islam (even by force like in the case of Egypt and Pakistan), suing those who dare to criticize islam or to reveal its truth, islamic immigration to non-muslim lands, breeding so much, electronic jihad etc……

Many Muslims instead compel themselves to live with one perspective about Islam; that it is being hijacked by terrorists and extremists and that Islam teaches peace and love toward all of humanity, friend or enemy, Muslim or infidel.

Amazingly these relatively peaceful people think they are the “True” Muslims and the representatives of Islam’s real image… And some naive non-Muslims swallow this bait, failing to detect the hook and fire that waits behind it.

It is easier and mentally more secure for them to accept at face value that Islam contains no evil. Ironically, many of the same people believe that guns, not the people who pull their triggers, bear the destruction, injury, and death they deliver. As such, non-Muslim defenders of relieve themselves of inquiry and accept the Muslim apologist defence that Islam is innocent of all charges of evil.

As a former Muslim, who is not ignorant of its worldview, requirements, and laws, I want to attract your attention to one very important fact: You may meet or know some relatively peaceful Muslims around you, but that does not mean that Islam itself is peaceful, which will be their claim. It must be. They are not permitted by their own law to portray Islam in a negative light, particularly to non-believers, even if they are discussing Qur’anic or legal elements (those that outside observers find unsavoury).

Most Muslims have ever read very little of the Qur’an, let alone read, or understand, most of it . Lot of them learned to recite some verses from the Qur’an without understanding its meanings . Most Muslims in non-Arabic speaking countries (which comprises most of the world’s Muslims) who memorize the Qur’an in Arabic do so only phonetically, not understanding a word they are reciting.

They have been taught that the poetic rhythm of the Qur’an alone, is sanctifying and will reward them with favour in the hereafter. Most Muslims know only of the Qur’an what is read to them on Friday prayers.

There is an enormous irony contained in the Boston Marathon bombing. When the jihadi Tsarnaev brothers carjacked a Mercedes, it had a Coexist bumper sticker.

The Coexist bumper sticker is the religious symbol of the multicultural crowd — you know — all religions are the same. Well, the leading symbol of those who want to Coexist is the star and crescent Islam. And exactly how well has Islam coexisted with all the others? What kind of neighbor has Islam been over history?

Start with Mohammed. We know an enormous amount about Mohammed as a neighbor to Kafirs (non-Muslims), pagans, Jews, and Christians.

When Mohammed was in Mecca before he became a Muslim, he was a good neighbor who was prosperous and helped to settle disputes. But, that all changed when he became the prophet of Allah. Once he became a public preacher of Islam, he became an irritant to his neighbors. You see, not only did Mohammed know what was right, he demanded that everybody do everything his way, Allah’s way. He was a neighbor who was always right and you were always wrong. Not only were you wrong, but your parents and grandparents were wrong. Mohammed no longer settled arguments; he created arguments. After 13 years of this, the Meccans told Mohammed to leave Mecca.

So he went to the town of Medina, which was half Jewish. And what kind of neighbor was Mohammed to the Jews? Put briefly, two years later, Medina was Judenrein (cleansed of Jews). When he arrived, there were three tribes of Jews. In rapid order, the first tribe was driven out of town, bereft of its goods. Then the second tribe of Jews was exiled. They were lucky. The last of the Jewish tribes suffered the most. The women were enslaved and sold wholesale for money to purchase horses and arms for jihad. For the rest of his life, Mohammed used slavery to help finance his jihad. The children were kidnapped and adopted into Muslim families to be raised as Muslims. Then the 800 male Jews were all beheaded.

But wait. Mohammed was not through coexisting with the Jews. Later he left Medina and went to Khaybar and attacked them. Mohammed crushed them, took their wealth and put them to work under the Sharia s dhimmis and give him half of what they earned.

That was how Mohammed coexisted with the Jews.

But Mohammed was not through with coexisting with the Arabians. He attacked the Meccan caravans. His jihadists killed, kidnapped, stole, assassinated and fought the pagan Arabs at every turn. Mohammed’s coexistence policy with the Arabs was jihad. This went on until every Arab became a Muslim.

After Mohammed made every soul in Arabia convert to Islam, he turned his coexistence policy to the Christians north of Arabia in Syria. He attacked the Christians, with the losers becoming dhimmis just like the Jews.

Dhimmis are the way that the Sharia allows Kafirs to coexist within a Muslim society. The dhimmi is a third-class non-citizen who pays special taxes and has no real civil rights. A dhimmi cannot testify against a Muslim in court, for instance.

Look at how Islam coexisted with Africa. A clue as to the nature of that coexistence is that Arabic has one word, “abd”, that means both black slave and African. Context must supply which meaning is used. Islam ran the slave trade on the West coast, East coast and Mediterranean coasts of Africa. Islam sold every slave that was brought to the Americas. Conservative estimates are that 120 million Africans were killed in the jihad that produced all of the slaves in Africa.

How did Islam coexist with the Buddhists in what is now Afghanistan? Jihad annihilated every single Buddhist and their libraries and monasteries.

There is a massive database of the coexistence between Islam and the rest of the world at thereligionofpeace.com. It catalogs more than 20,000 jihad attacks around the world since 9/11 2001.

Oh My God. How wrong can you be? Please have more knowledge before you say anything.

Most of what you wrote about Islam is wrong. Islam has several verses which contribute to peace on earth and tolerance to all. Some people do not adhere to this and happen to be Muslim so you regard that as consensus. It’s interesting to justify your sense of Islam you bring in Boko Haram and the kidnapping of the Christian girl for blasphemy. (Your average Muslims??). I hold a degree in Islamic studies and am now studying a post grad; so I know what I am talking about. As a Christian myself I know we too have our faults in society but on no account does that represent the mass.

So you hold yourself to be an expert? Well, there are only two experts–Allah and Mohammed. Islam is found in the Koran, Sira and Hadith. Everything else is comment, including your post grad courses.

The “several verses which contribute to peace on earth and tolerance for all” in the Koran are all abrogated by later jihadic verses. The man who does not understand the use of abrogation should not comment about the Koran.

Seek critical study of source texts, not university propaganda. After you have read the Koran in the correct time order (to see the abrogation) and read the Sira by Ishaq or al Tabari and Bukhari, come back and comment. (21% of Bukhari’s hadiths are about murderous jihad.) Master the Sunna of Mohammed and then talk to us.

Look at Mohammed’s life. He preached the religion of Islam in Mecca for 13 years and got 150 Meccans to become Muslims. He moved to Medina and attacked every single neighbor he had, without exception. In his rise to absolute power he was responsible for an event of violence on the average of every 6 weeks for the last 9 years of his life. Peace on earth, what a joke!

Boko Haram jihadists follow pure Medinan Islam. You confuse Muslim-ology with the study of Islam. Start with Islam to understand Muslims. Do not start with Muslims to understand Islamic doctrine.

Another thing about those peaceful believers who make up the mass of Muslims, do you notice that they don’t condemn the murder of Christians? They are silent. Do they teach you in your post grad Islam classes that “silence is consent”?

Have you ever condemned the jihadic murder of Christians? Buddhists? Hindus? Jews? Over 270 million non-Muslims were murdered by jihad over the last 1400 years. And you speak of peace.

Christians who are silent in the face of Islamic jihad against Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Hindu and atheists are giving consent to this brutality. There have been over 20,000 jihad attacks since 9/11. What noise are you making about that? Silence is consent.

Your apologist education has made you a deluded dhimmi. What is truly tragic is that you represent the pious pacifism of today’s Christians. You are so nice, but you are ruled by fear. It is odd how many Christians live in fear, yet Jesus told his followers, again and again, not to fear. Put down the gospel of nice and take up the Gospel of Christ and take on spiritual warfare.

Oh, and you Jews, take up the mantle of Aaron, Gideon, Deborah and David. Let the Hindus remember the Bhagavad Gita. Let the Buddhists take a lesson from Rinzai Zen.

We either stand together in this civilizational war or we will all be annihilated. See Turkey, Egypt, North Africa, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran and the other graveyards of Kafir civilization.

This article is a belated response to an attack by the website “Loonwatch” on
TheReligionofPeace.com (TROP) which appears to raise questions about the
integrity of the broadly cited list of Islamic terror attacks maintained by TROP.

Loonwatch is an apparently well-funded Islamic website run by an anonymous group which exists for two general purposes: to publicize incidents of offense to Muslim-Americans (which are mostly trivial against the horrific discrimination faced by religious minorities in Muslim lands), and to slander critics of Islam, usually by pretending that they are making bigoted arguments against Muslims as a people when they really aren’t.

The people behind Loonwatch generally ignore or severely downplay Islamic terrorism, since the significance of the issues they promote compares poorly to the hundreds of shootings, bombings, stabbing and beheadings that occur each month in the name of Allah. My own website, TheReligionofPeace.com (TROP) is a frequent target of theirs, since it presents a litany of Islamic violence that is difficult to ignore.

As with other Muslim organizations in America, such as CAIR, Loonwatch suffers from a near absence of moral perspective. While fervent members of their own religion go about imprisoning, assaulting, beating, igniting, shooting, bludgeoning, and torturing Christians who share their faith in Islamic lands, for example, these groups whine incessantly about bacon bits, hurt feelings and the inexorable “someone didn’t hire me because I wear a hijab”. Very rarely will they even bother to denounce specific atrocities meted out in the name of Islam, much less channel their influence toward resolving far more serious problems associated with their faith.

It is this astonishing narcissism that compelled me to being compiling a list of Islamic terror attacks in 2002. In the ten years since, it has grown to about 20,000. My original hope was that confronting Muslim organizations with the magnitude of violence committed in the name of their religion might inspire a realignment of priorities more in keeping with that of other faith and value systems. Obviously, this did not happen.

Instead of inspiring action toward ending the violence, these groups respond merely by trying to discount and shift responsibility, almost as if it is a game. For their part, Loonwatch has produced several articles and videos over the years attempting to manipulate others into believing that the list of attacks is entirely fabricated or that Islam plays no role in the violence. Theirs is the sort of religion that fosters self-absorption without self-reflection, it seems.

Loonwatch demonizes any critic of Islam with a broad-brush. It matters little to them, for example, that my site takes issue only with a supremacist ideology that openly touts the superiority of Muslim men and the relative inferiority of everyone else, or that I passionately denounce the mistreatment of Muslims and even the desecration of copies of the Quran. They prefer instead to blindly slander TROP as a “hate site” and insinuate that there is a sinister effort on my part to promote a false agenda.

A July 10th article on Loonwatch, modestly titled “TheReligionOfPeace.com: Working to Streamline the American Empire’s ‘War on Terror’”, appears to be a slightly more sophisticated attempt to disparage the list of attacks. After years of implying that the incidents on the list were fabricated, it seems that someone at Loonwatch actually analyzed a month’s worth of TROP data and could not find a single one that had not occurred. The focus then shifted to absolving Islam of responsibility for the attacks based on a handful of items that appear to fall into a grey area.

**********

….. Loonwatch entertains standards of “Christian” terrorism that are loose to the point of laughable. Their criticism of my site actually pulls from the work of Sami Zaatari, who is known for having touted a list of what he called “Christian terror attacks” on Muslim-Responses.com. Although he has since gone to great lengths to purge it from Internet archives, Sami’s “list” was a collection of a few dozen bombings carried out over the last 50 years by a motley crew that included Columbian drug gangs, the KKK, leftist terror groups like FARC, and the Marxist-atheist IRA. Most of the perpetrators were not even remotely religious.

In fact, Loonwatch’s own record in the credibility department is a bit sketchy. For example, they are still hammering Robert Spencer for warning that the Muslim Brotherhood would take over in Egypt – scientifically dismissing it as “loony fear-mongering” on the part of someone who “isn’t qualified to speak on such subjects”. Loonwatch’s own panel of experts assured them that Islamists in Egypt were “simply too weak to overtake the secular opposition” in the upcoming elections. Then the elections were held… and Islamists took 76% of the legislative body… and the presidency.

In the case of Loonwatch’s attack on TROP, the real story isn’t so much whether or not 7% of the incidents on the list fit their personal requirements, but rather their lack of interest in the other 93%. Even if half the list could be legitimately disregarded (which it cannot), it would still leave a great deal of horrific violence done in the name of Islam each and every day. There seems to be no flicker of recognition on their part as to the larger problem.

The 202 Islamic terror attacks documented in the period analyzed by Loonwatch occurred across 26 countries. They ranged from Abu Sayyaf strafing elderly women with gunfire in the Philippines to a secular blogger stabbed in the throat by fundamentalists in the Maldives. Of the 1,061 people killed, the incidents with which Loonwatch takes issue accounted for just 36. More innocents than that were massacred in a single Sunday’s worth of church bombings on June 17th by Islamists in Nigeria, who openly credited the Quran’s imperative to fight Christians. In Kenya, Mujahideen threw grenades into two more churches and shot worshippers as they fled. In Tunisia, videotape surfaced of an ex-Muslim convert to Christianity being gruesomely beheaded to shouts of ‘Allah Akbar’ by those who prayed beforehand.

Meanwhile, Loonwatch scours for anomalies in order to make the weak point that a few dozen deaths out of every thousand may not fit the traditional definition of terror attack victims since they were women stabbed in the name of Quranic morals or troops shot in the back by Allah-praising Islamists while trying to protect Afghan children. There’s the moral victory? Really?

Here’s a tip for Loonwatch. Take another look at that list and see if you can tell where religious tolerance is needed most in the world today.

While doing some research for this post, I came across a document that appeared to have been written less than one month after 9/11; it was written in the form of a journal but did not have an author’s name (I have since learned it and reveal it at the end of this post ). It consisted of a first hand account of someone who lived near to and worked in Washington, D.C.; it was someone who worked near the Capitol Building; it was someone who knew Congressmen and Senators personally; and it was someone who was a strong Christian.

As I read what this person obviously knew in the hours after 9/11, it became blatantly obvious to me that the individuals at the highest levels of the George W. Bush administration knew it too. If the author of this account had been listened to then, the rise of Islam across the Middle East, Europe, and here in America since, may have been significantly reduced, if not outright prevented. These observations are so spot-on from someone who had much less information than Bush’s inner circle did that I’m convinced this is not an issue of Monday morning quarterbacking; the Bush strategy after 9/11 was fatally flawed and his administration chose the path of least resistance. In short, the administration lied to us and to itself.

Read the entire account here if you’d like. I’ve excerpted portions that particularly struck me as being incredibly prescient. Here is some of the author’s account of what he experienced on September 12, 2001:

By mid afternoon on Wednesday I was convinced that not only was the United States a victim of Islamic Jihad, but that the attack had been perpetrated by an organization controlled by a Saudi citizen and that most of those involved were Saudi, and that furthermore the attack was financed for the most part by Saudi businessmen and members of the Saudi royal family.

At the end of the day I made the following statement to my wife:

“These attacks were planned, financed and carried out by Saudi nationals and as a result the real culprits will never come to justice. We will bomb some third world nation like Afghanistan and our government will say our “moderate” Islamic friends with all the oil were not involved. Worse, we will put a handful of people in jail like we did the last time the World Trade Center was bombed. The Islamic fanatics will think a trade off of four or five in jail getting three meals a day, versus thousands of Americans dead, is a great deal.

So far, he accurately identified what the Bush administration would do with respect to Afghanistan. We also know that based on the fact that al-Qaeda financier – Abdullah Omar Naseef – was not held to account for his role in funding al-Qeada, there were some “moderate” Islamic friends who escaped American wrath over 9/11. Naseef was once the Secretary General of the Muslim World League (MWL), which is funded by the Saudi Royal family. He also founded the Rabita Trust, an entity that was identified by the U.S. Treasury Department as financing al-Qaeda; it was listed as a terrorist organization and its assets frozen one month after 9/11.

Here is an excerpt from the author’s account about his experiences on September 13, 2001:

As I talked to congressmen and Senators my worst fears were realized. I carried documents with me showing clearly that most funding for Osama Bin Laden’s terror network came from moderate states like Saudi Arabia. While the Saudi government itself claims that it has no ties to these terror organizations, each year the government gives $10 billion to fundamentalist Islamic organizations, many of them located in the United States.

When I confronted one well known Senator about the millions of dollars going to Bin Laden’s terror network from Saudi businessmen, he said to me, “Yes, but they are coerced into giving it to him.”

I responded to this by saying, “Maybe those millionaire Saudi businessmen should be more fearful of us than they are of Bin Laden.”

Later that day almost the identical conversation took place between myself and a member of the House leadership and then again with someone within the Bush Administration. It was made clear to me that none of the wealthy Saudi Arabians who finance Islamic terror would meet the wrath of the United States for fear of angering the “friendly” state of Saudi Arabia. This was made clear to me by members of the House and Senate, both Democrat and Republican as well as by some in the Administration. I was appalled.

The author was quite correct about those “moderate” Islamic friends facing no consequences. Perhaps the most chilling excerpt from the author was found in his account of what he witnessed on September 14, 2001:

My stomach churned as I watched Muzammil Siddiqi, the Imam for the Islamic Society of North America, stand on stage with President George W. Bush in the National Cathedral. Imam Siddiqi is a radical extremist who has participated in anti-American demonstrations in front of the White House as recently as October of 2000. He has in the past called for a Jihad or holy war against this nation. While the Christian and Jewish leaders at the event prayed for our nation and for the dead and dying from the attack, Imam Siddiqi did not do so. At no time did he condemn the acts of the terrorists nor did he pray for America or for the families of those who lost their lives in the Jihad attack against the United States…

As the service closed I felt the chill of the presence of the awesome power of God. I was clearly reminded of the very first of the Ten Commandments, THOU SHALT HAVE NO OTHER GODS BEFORE ME (Exodus 20:3). The National Cathedral had been defiled… Our Christian President had bowed his head to prayers offered to other gods, prayers that may have been for those who would destroy our nation and enslave our children to an alien religion. At that moment the hand of protection of the true God was removed from our nation.

Since the Jihad attack on the United States on September 11th the President has surrounded himself with and sought advice from radical Islamic leaders who have openly called for the violent overthrow of the government of the United States. In addition, the President has invited six of the seven Islamic nations known to sponsor terror into his “coalition against terror”.

By late Friday it became apparent to me that our nation was in fact not going to fight a war on terrorism, but rather follow the same old track of “punishing those who actually committed the crime.” This was not a “crime;” it was an act of war.

Siddiqi eventually stepped down as president of the Muslim Brotherhood group but he has not really left the ISNA; he now serves as the Religious Director for the Islamic Society of Orange County (ISOC), which recently welcomed Congresswomen Maxine Waters (D-CA) and Loretta Sanchez (D-CA).

Here’s a portion of the author’s entry about the week of September 17, 2001:

A sharp line began to form in Washington between those of us willing to tell the truth about what had happened on September 11th and those who wish to continue to live in the fantasy world of pluralism. The ACLU began a campaign to stop “oppression” of Muslims in the United States. They began the campaign by signing up organizations to protect the “civil rights” of Muslims.

Meanwhile the “moderate” Islamic organizations had a word of their own for Muslims in America: DO NOT HELP THE FBI. Internet sites warned Muslims that: “The FBI has a history of harassing and harming minority and immigrant communities. Some people are spending a long time in jail because they or their friends talked to the FBI.”

As for the author’s assertion that George W. Bush wrongly stood with radical Islamic leaders… Once again, here is video of Bush on September 17, 2001 inside the Islamic Center of Washington mosque. The Executive Director of the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) – Nihad Awad – stood behind Bush as the president espoused the religion of our attackers:

He spoke at the same mosque more than one year later on December 5, 2002:

Those who argue that the Bush strategy was based on a tried and true adage that says, keep your friends close and your enemies closer, run into a big problem.

It’s a strategy an excuse that has failed us miserably since 9/11.

Islam is on the rise all across the globe. The Muslim Brotherhood front groups Bush attempted to appease have smiles from ear to rear. In fact, Bush himself, in an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal earlier this year, actually seemed to urge people to embrace the Brotherhood’s rise in the Middle East:

These are extraordinary times in the history of freedom. In the Arab Spring, we have seen the broadest challenge to authoritarian rule since the collapse of Soviet communism. The idea that Arab peoples are somehow content with oppression has been discredited forever.

Yet we have also seen instability, uncertainty and the revenge of brutal rulers. The collapse of an old order can unleash resentments and power struggles that a new order is not yet prepared to handle.

Some in both parties in Washington look at the risks inherent in democratic change—particularly in the Middle East and North Africa—and find the dangers too great. America, they argue, should be content with supporting the flawed leaders they know in the name of stability.

But in the long run, this foreign policy approach is not realistic. It is not within the power of America to indefinitely preserve the old order, which is inherently unstable. Oppressive governments distrust the diffusion of choice and power, choking off the best source of national prosperity and success.

Today, Naseef, at least one of the men who should have been the object of as much American ire as bin Laden was, watches safely from afar as a woman who served with him on the Board of an organization he founded – the Islamic Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs (IMMA) – now serves alongside Secretary of State Hillary Clinton as Clinton’s closest advisor.

In the days and weeks after 9/11, George W. Bush’s approval rating shot up to 90%. When he left office, he was at 34%. 9/11 was his biggest moment of truth and his approval rating steadily fell after the invasion of Afghanistan; it spiked after the initial success in Iraq, and steadily declined thereafter. Bush had the American people behind him after 9/11 and he ultimately squandered much of our support by not leveling with us and by not identifying everyone who was responsible for hitting us.

In hindsight, the anger at Bush, Cheney, Rove, et. al. was not all that unwarranted, though the vitriol and expressed reasons for that anger often were. The decision to go into Iraq was a devastatingly wrong one. That should be obvious now. Iraq was a threat to Saudi Arabia more than it was to us. Saddam Hussein threatened the Saudis in a way not all that dissimilar from how he threatened Kuwait in the early 90′s. In essence, the United States aligned with a nation that was actually culpable in the 9/11 attacks, against that nation’s enemy.

It’s time for us on the right to acknowledge that many of those who screamed the loudest about invading Iraq being the wrong thing to do, were correct. George W. Bush should do the same.

WHAT SHOULD HAVE HAPPENED AFTER 9/11

Based on the insights of the author of that prescient 9/11 account – William Murray of the Religious Freedom Coalition – the argument that Murray knew the truth while Bush and his advisors did not is poppycock. That’s why this is not about Monday morning quarterbacking (ripping a coach for the decision to punt on first down is not Monday morning quarterbacking; it’s justified criticism). It’s about what should have been done by those who should have had the courage to do it.

On July 24th John Guandolo gave this intelligence briefing on the MB in Georgia. This mini-brief is four hours of a usual 3 day briefing that Guandolo used to give to law enforcement and intelligence officials. Here are Guandolo”s credentials.

About the Presenter — “Counterterrorism expert and former federal agent John Guandolo graduated from the US Naval Academy in 1989, accepting a commission as an Officer in the United States Marines. He served as a combat Infantry Platoon Commander with the 2nd Battalion, 2nd Marine Regiment during Operations Desert Storm and Desert Shield and as a Platoon Commander, Assistant Operations Officer, and Airborne and Diving Officer in the 2nd Force Reconnaissance Company between 1991 and 1996. John resigned his commission in the Marines in 1996 and joined the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) in the Washington, DC Field Office. He investigated numerous cases while at the FBI, and in addition to serving as Swat Team Leader for the Washington Field Office, was one of the Bureau’s Advanced Capability Medics. While working in the FBI’s Counterterrorism Division, John acquired substantial knowledge and expertise in the Muslim Brotherhood, Islamic Law (a.k.a. shari’ah) and teaching, and the Global Islamic Movement (GIM). His accumulated knowledge on these and related subjects earned him the FBI’s “Subject Matter Expert” (SME)” designation, a role that afforded him the opportunity to design and implement the FBI’s first counter-terrorism training”.

Guandolo has been giving this same presentation, since 2003, to the U.S. intelligence community, before it was ‘outlawed” by our government. He obviously knows this material inside and out. The evidence for MB infiltration into our government is epically overwhelming. Not only that, the evidences of Al Quada and Hamas infiltration are also as overwhelming.

Take for instance Aldurahman Alamoudi and Anwar Alawki. Aldurahman Alamoudi was the top advisor to Bill Clinton on Islam. Alamoudi also started over 20 MB front groups in America, our Military Muslim Chaplin Program and was instrumental in choosing textbooks on Islam in American public schools. It turns out that not only is he MB, he is also Hamas and is in prison now for plotting with Hamas to kill a Saudi Arabian Prince and providing financing to Hamas. Anwar Alawki was the top advisor to George W. Bush on 911 and was the go to guy about policy towards Islam after 911. After many months of advising the administration and even holding prayer events at the U.S. Capitol Building, it was determined that Anwar Alawki was Hamas. Years later Obama would order a drone missile strike to take Anwar Alawki out. And it is almost as bad now as it was then. COULD WE AT LEAST KEEP HAMAS OUT OF OUR GOVERNMENT?

Here is some description text from that site. “On August 20, 2004, two Baltimore County, MD police officers spotted Selim Elbarasse and his wife videotaping the 4.3-mile-long Chesapeake Bay Bridge. When they reported the sighting to Maryland Transportation Authority (MTA) Police at the toll plaza, officers stopped Elbarasse’s SUV west of the bridge. Police confiscated the camera, and afterward reported having seen the Elbarasses, who were accompanied by two children, attempting to hide the camera. The confiscated video contained close-up footage of Chesapeake Bay Bridge support structures. When officers ran a criminal background check, they discovered that Elbarasse was wanted on an outstanding material witness warrant out of Chicago in a case involving the terrorist group Hamas and Elbarasse was detained.

When agents of the FBI’s Washington, DC Field Office raided Elbarasse’s Annandale, Virginia home and searched his basement, they found a hidden sub-basement containing the archives of the Muslim Brotherhood in North America. The seized documents, which revealed a secret Muslim Brotherhood strategy to infiltrate and overthrow the United States Government and replace the Constitution with Islamic Law, were subsequently entered into evidence in the Holy Land Foundation trial, the largest terrorism financing case in US history. Further investigation and discovery confirmed that the Muslim Brotherhood had not only penetrated the Federal Government at the highest levels, but had been running a sophisticated influence operation from within the Federal Bureaucracy for decades. Contrary to sound reason, the Muslim Brotherhood’s infiltration of government and influence in the affairs of state has not decreased, but has grown much worse since.

Understanding the Threat to America lays bare the danger posed by those who masquerade as “moderate Muslims” to gain our trust while they work secretly to overthrow of our way of life; exposes the individual actors, organizational infrastructure, and modus operandi of the “civilizational jihad;” and arms viewers with useful information and practical steps they can take to reverse the “Civilization Jihad” in America.”

After I watched both presentations of the briefing, I ordered the 80 minute DVD and sent a letter to Guandolo requesting an interview by email and for access to a brochure he mentioned and has produced called The Muslim Brotherhood Handbook.

THIS INTELLIGENCE BRIEF IS SO POWERFUL that I am also buying video editing software to take the different sections of the brief, cut them up, and upload them everywhere I can. And when I get the 80 minute DVD, I will be making it available on ALL my YouTube accounts and I will self host the video on my server if it is taken down from youtube. THE BRIEFING IS THAT GOOD AND NECESSARY.